Justin Trudeau has announced that he would step down as Canadian prime minister after his successor is chosen, probably by the end of March. Trudeau said he is leaving because despite being “a fighter,” he cannot lead his party into the forthcoming election while facing internal party divisions. In sum, his caucus, his Liberal party and the country want him gone. So off he goes, perhaps better late than never, but despite his reasoning, his resignation remains difficult to understand.
Up until Christmas, Trudeau had repeatedly said he was staying on, ready and eager to fight Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre and his party — who are up by more than 20 points in polls — in this year’s election.
However, calls for him to resign had been creeping into the public view, from former members of parliament, Cabinet ministers and even lawmakers.
So why was he forced out? What were the internal party divisions he cited as he stood in front of his home at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa on Monday and announced his departure?
When then-Canadian minister of finance and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland quit just before Christmas, on the day she was due to present the government’s economic update, pressure for Trudeau to step aside grew louder and more frequent.
Freeland could not abide Trudeau’s fiscal policies — too keen to spend in the face of a growing deficit and potential tariffs from US president-elect Donald Trump’s administration; too gimmicky, with the government’s sales tax holiday plans (fulfilled) and intention to send working Canadians a C$250 (US$176) stimulus cheque (unfulfilled).
By the new year, the Liberal party’s regional Atlantic and Quebec caucuses had abandoned Trudeau, as he had lost the support of most of his supporters.
The Liberals swept every seat in Atlantic Canada in 2015 on their way to a sizeable majority and they are unlikely to form a government without robust support in Quebec. The position had become utterly untenable for Trudeau.
Global News said every lawmaker it spoke to said Trudeau had gone too far left. It is a risible claim, but a grievance that had been circulating for some time among a cadre of more fiscally austere Liberals. In a way, that concern was echoed in Freeland’s resignation letter, where she wrote that in the face of Trump’s threat of big tariffs, Canada must “keep our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war.”
Keeping the powder dry meant “eschewing costly political gimmicks, which we can ill afford and which make Canadians doubt that we recognize the gravity of the moment,” Freeland wrote.
A first reading of the moment might confirm that Trudeau had indeed gone “too far left” for some in his party, whatever that means, but it misses the deeper fact that as he passed a decade in power, the prime minister had contracted a common and often-deadly political ailment — he became saddled with the baggage one accumulates over time, resulting in dwindling popularity.
Trudeau won a majority in 2015, but he was relegated to minority governments after the 2019 and 2021 elections, each of which he won with fewer votes than the Tories.
His government was left relying on intermittent support from whichever party it could court that day, particularly the left-wing New Democratic party. The dynamic only added to the sense of decline, the feeling that the Liberals were becoming a spent force.
Of Canada’s 23 prime ministers, Trudeau ranks seventh in length of tenure, just behind Stephen Harper, whom he beat to form a government in 2015. Harper made it nine years and 271 days.
Jean Chretien, who ranks fifth, lasted just more than 10 years before being forced out by an internal party faction.
The man who ranks just below Trudeau, the late Brian Mulroney, made it nearly nine years before resigning ahead of the 1993 election that saw his party almost obliterated.
What all these men share is that by the end of their time, they had become a spent force. As a quotation attributed to the former UK prime minister Harold Wilson tells us: “A week is a long time in politics.” So how long, then, is a decade? It is an eternity, a length of time during which citizens can — and will — project onto a leader every perceived irritant or issue of concern, fairly or unfairly, from the state of the economy to the lousy weather.
A politician might be forgiven — or at least understood — when they are down in the polls and counted out, for relying on political gimmicks in an attempt to survive the inevitable, but by the end it was all rather desperate for Trudeau and bad for the country.
Having managed to make it through the rise of Trump, the COVID-19 pandemic and more mundane political challenges, Trudeau was trying to achieve four election wins in a row, something no Canadian prime minister, including his father, has done since Wilfrid Laurier accomplished it more than 100 years ago.
The Liberals would now choose a successor to Trudeau and that person would probably learn the hard lesson that the party’s fortunes are not primarily about anything so complicated as ideology or policy agendas at this point; rather, they are a function of time and its inexorable march forward.
While it might be cold comfort today, the Liberals might be the beneficiaries of the iron law of time when it inevitably comes for their opponent, although they might have to wait a decade or so.
David Moscrop is a columnist, political commentator and the author of Too Dumb for Democracy: Why We Make Bad Political Decisions and How We Can Make Better Ones.
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS